Tribunal Decisions – April 2024

Decisions related to immigration advisor Mr Liu

XI v Liu [2025] NZIACDT 12, HG v Liu [2025] NZIACDT 13, ZJ v Liu [2025] NZIACDT 15, TX v Liu [2025] 16, IX v Liu [2025] 17, YI v Liu [2025] 18, DH v Liu [2025] 19 and EL v Liu [2025] 20

The Tribunal looked at 8 complaints referred by the Authority for similar conduct in relation to 8 clients. The Tribunal found that Mr Liu breached clauses 1, 2(e), 14, 18 (a), 22, and 26(b) of the Code of Conduct in all 8 cases, and 26(a)(iii) in 4 of the cases. Conduct included that he: 

• Failed to be professional and diligent by failing to provide the complainants their visa applications to review before lodging, in breach of cl 1. 
• Failed to obtain the complainants’ instructions, in breach of cl 2(e). 
• Failed to provide the complainants with evidence of being licensed, in breach of cl 14. 
• Failed to provide the complainants with written agreements, in breach of cl 18(a) of the Code.
• Failed to provide invoices to the complainants, in breach of cl 22.
• Failed to confirm in writing to the complainants when their visa application had been lodged and to make on-going timely updates, in breach of cl 26(b). 
• Failed to provide to the Authority copies of all his written communications in relation to 4 of the complainants, in breach of cl 26(a)(iii). 

Mr Liu was censured and ordered to pay a total of $32,000 to the Registrar. In one case he was also ordered to pay $1,700 compensation and a $800 refund to one of the Complainants.

Decisions related to immigration advisor Ms Li

INZ v Li [2025] NZIACDT 10 and INZ v Li [2025] NZIACDT 11

The Tribunal considered 2 complaints referred by the Authority for similar conduct in relation to 2 clients. The Tribunal found that Ms Li breached clauses 1, 2(a), 2(e), 4(a), 8(a), 14, 18(b), 26(b) and 31(a) of the Code of Conduct for the following conduct:

• Failed to be diligent by providing the client with an opportunity to review the application before lodging, in breach of cl 1.
• Failed to maintain a relationship of confidence and trust with the client and provide objective advice, in breach of cl 2(a).
• Failed to obtain the informed lawful instructions of the client, in breach of cl 2(e).
• Failed to preserve the confidentiality of the client except with the client’s written consent, in breach of cl 4(a).
• Worked outside the scope of her skills supporting clients with a language barrier, in breach of cl 8(a)
• Failed to provide to the client evidence of being licensed, in breach of cl 14.
• Failed to explain all significant matters in the written agreement to the client, in breach of cl 18(b).
• Failed to confirm in writing to the client when his application was lodged and to make on-going timely updates, in breach of cl 26(b).
• Negligently provided false or misleading information to Immigration NZ about her provision of immigration advice to the client, in breach of cl 31(a) of the Code.

Ms Li was censured and ordered to pay $4,000 to the Registrar in relation to the first matter, and censured and ordered to pay $5,000 to the Registrar in relation to the second matter.

Decisions related to immigration advisor Ms Wen

ZZ v Wen [2025] NZIACDT 22

The Tribunal found that Ms Wen breached clauses 1, 2(e), 14, 18(a), 18(b) and 26(b) of the Code of Conduct for the following conduct:

• Failed to conduct herself in a diligent manner by giving the complainant an opportunity to review the visa application before lodging it, in breach of cl 1. 
• Failed to obtain and carry out the informed instructions of the complainant by processing the application without communicating with him, in breach of cl 2(e) of the Code. 
• Failed to provide the complainant with evidence of being licensed, in breach of cl 14. 
• Failed to provide the complainant with a written agreement, in breach of cl 18(a). 
• Failed to explain to the complainant all significant matters in the written agreement, in breach of cl 18(b). 
• Failed to confirm in writing to the complainant when his visa application was lodged and to make on-going timely updates, in breach of cl 26(b). 

Ms Wen was censured and ordered to pay $4,000 to the Registrar within one month of the decision.JY v Wen [2025] NZIACDT 23

The Tribunal found that Ms Wen breached clauses 1, 14, 17(a), 17(c), 18(a), 18(b), 20(a), 22 and 26(b) of the Code of Conduct for the following conduct:

• Failed to conduct herself in a professional and diligent manner by giving the complainant an opportunity to review the visa application before lodging it, in breach of cl 1 of the Code. 
• Failed to provide evidence of being licensed to the client, in breach of cl 14 of the Code.
• Failed to provide the complainant with the summary of an adviser’s responsibilities in breach of cl 17(a), or with her internal complaints procedure in breach of cl 17(c). 
• Provided the complainant with a services agreement after the visa was approved in breach of cl 18(a), and failed to explain all significant matters in the agreement in breach of cl 18(b). 
• Charged a total fee of RMB 40,000 and the contractually specified fee of RMB 20,000 both of which were not fair or reasonable, in breach of cl 20(a).
• Failed to provide the complainant with an invoice for a payment of RMB 20,000 made, in breach of cl 22. 
• Failed to inform the complainant of Immigration NZ’s letter, in breach of cl 26(b).

Ms Wen was censured and ordered to pay $3,000 to the Registrar within one month of the decision.

New decisions are appearing regularly and I encourage you to save the following link as a bookmark. 

Recent Tribunal decisions(external link) — Justice.govt.nz